Marsh v. London

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Marsh v. London

181 So. 2d 186, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 3618

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 14, 1965·No. No. 65-340·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed upon authority of the law stated in Lopez v. Lopez, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 456, at page 458, where, in speaking of the [187] purchase of property where title had been taken as an estate by the entirety, the Supreme Court said:

“We do not consider the purchase money mortgages and notes involved in this cause to be a common burden. We construe that the husband and wife were each obligated for the whole of the debt, since each is considered to have purchased and owned the whole estate. Their interests were not divisible. Ashwood v. Patterson, Fla. 1951, 49 So.2d 848.”

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed upon authority of the law stated in Lopez v. Lopez, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 456, at page 458, where, in speaking of the [187] purchase of property where title had been taken as an estate by the entirety, the Supreme Court said:

“We do not consider the purchase money mortgages and notes involved in this cause to be a common burden. We construe that the husband and wife were each obligated for the whole of the debt, since each is considered to have purchased and owned the whole estate. Their interests were not divisible. Ashwood v. Patterson, Fla. 1951, 49 So.2d 848.”

Affirmed.

Marsh v. London, 181 So. 2d 186, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 3618 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

181 So. 2d 186 (Marsh v. London) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related